20161119 Ver 1_More Info Received - Email_20161209

Strickland, Bev
From:Jonathan Oravetz <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, December 09, 2016 11:05 AM
To:Smith, Cherri L
Subject:RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1
There is no change in the required mitigation from the application.

Thanks!

Jonathan

From: Smith, Cherri L \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:04 AM
To: Jonathan Oravetz <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1

Jonathan,

Thank you for all of this clarification. My only other question is regarding the required buffer mitigation language that
I’ll need to include in the approval letter. Has the required mitigation for Zone’s 1 and 2 changed at all from when you
submitted the permit application? Just let me know, and thank you for your help.

Cherri

From: Jonathan Oravetz \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 7:53 AM
To: Smith, Cherri L <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1

Cherri,

Thank you for the clarification regarding the utility crossings. I have looked over the stream buffer crossings and we only
have 2 impacts that are not perpendicular crossings (they are parallel crossings) to Zone 2 buffers. Impacts within both
of these areas overlap with delineated wetlands (Stream SAD and SRR) and wetland mitigation is provided for these
clearing impacts. These areas of overlap were removed from the Zone 2 buffer mitigation since wetland mitigation is
already provided for the clearing impact.

Also I contacted Kelly Williams with the NC ILF program. While the letter issued by the Division of Mitigation Services
does not explicitly state that no banks are available in the project basins (HUC# 03010204, 03010107, 03020102), the
issuance of the acceptance letter should serve as verification that there are no banks in the basins and is the equivalent
to letter of reservation of credit. Prior to submitting an application to use the ILF program we reviewed the ACOE RIBITS
and DWR list of available banks to confirm there are no private banks within the basins. Below is the link to the DWR list
of available banks:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Mitigation/Available%20Mitigaton%20Banks_website_1
0-28-16km.pdf

1

I do have a copy of my email correspondence with Kelly Williams if you need that as documentation of no banks within
the basin.

Thanks again for the help and please let me know if you need anything else.

Jonathan

From: Smith, Cherri L \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Jonathan Oravetz <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1

Hi Jonathan,

Please see highlighted responses below.

Cherri

From: Jonathan Oravetz \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Smith, Cherri L <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1

Cherri,

In reference to you questions below the 15.946 acres of permanent impact is only related to a change in vegetation
from forested to herbaceous wetlands. It would be considered by the ACOE a “permanent conversion impact”. There is
no fill involved with these impacts however the ACOE is requiring wetland mitigation at 1:1 for these “conversion”
impacts.

I have reviewed the buffer mitigation memo you provided which does help provide additional insight into the stream
buffer mitigation requirements for utility project. In reviewing the document, it seems the project would fall under the
category of Replacing an existing non-electric utility line outside of the footprint of the existing maintenance corridor,
for which impacts to Zone 2 buffers are allowable. Based on this information, it seems we need to modify the proposed
mitigation to remove buffer mitigation related to the Zone 2 impacts. Can you confirm that I am interpreting this
correctly? The buffer mitigation memo is for impacts other than perpendicular crossings so your interpretation is
correct if you’re referring to any non-perpendicular impacts.

Also I looked over the 15A NCAC 02B.0259 Regulations one more time as it relates to allowable with mitigation impact
for Zone 1. The project maintenance corridor is 50ft wide, and construction will result in impacts to at least 50 linear ft
of riparian buffers at each perpendicular crossing, which exceed the thresholds of allowable for perpendicular
crossings. The project disturbance and maintenance footprint would fall into the allowable with mitigation
category. Yes, that’s correct so there would be mitigation for both Zone 1 and 2 impacts for perpendicular crossings.

I have attached a copy of the reservation letter from the ILF program which states there are no available banks in the
project HUC basin. Since it seems we will not need to provide mitigation for Zone 2 buffers, do I need to get a revised
letter from ILF or can the permit be issued which only requires Zone 1 mitigation and we can make payment
accordingly? I didn’t see where the letter states that there are no available banks in the project HUC basin for riparian
buffers. If you could show me that language, I’d appreciated it. Also, please just double check regarding Zone 2
mitigation because I think there may still be some Zone 2 buffer mitigation required.

2

Thanks again for the closer look at the project, it might have really saved us!

If you have any questions or need additional documentation please let me know.

Jonathan Oravetz

8933 Western Way, Suite 12
Jacksonville, FL 32256
o| 904.538.9171 x 1003
c | 386.314.9897
f | 904.538.9172

From: Smith, Cherri L \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 12:47 PM
To: Jonathan Oravetz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 6 - Ph. 1

Hi Jonathan,

I’ve had a chance to review the application you submitted for the subject project, and I just had a couple of questions for
you. Are the 15.946 acres of permanent impacts to wetlands the result of a change in vegetation from forested to
herbaceous or do these permanent impacts involve fill? I’m just asking because the Division of Water Resources doesn’t
consider the change in vegetation from woody to herbaceous to be a permanent wetland impact (even though the
Corps does consider it to be a permanent impact).

Also, I can’t remember if I sent you the following memo regarding buffer mitigation:

https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Buffer%20Clarification%20Memos/Utility-When-
Mitigation-Or-Notification-Required-20110203.pdf

If not, you might want to take a look at the table that’s included to double check the buffer mitigation numbers you have
in the application. The riparian buffer rules left a lot of gaps in interpretation in regard to utility lines, and this memo
attempts to close some of those gaps. I think it could only serve to possibly lower the mitigation numbers for buffers so
that’s why I want to make sure you have it.

Also, I’ll need the reservation of credits letter for the buffer mitigation for this project from a mitigation bank or the NC
Division of Mitigation Services. The Division of Mitigation Services credits can be reserved only after it is determined
that there are no credits available through a mitigation bank. I’ll need to have a copy of the reservation of credits letter
for the wetlands mitigation as well.

Thank you for your help with these questions and additional items.

Cherri

Cherri Smith
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628

ph. 919-791-4251
3

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties

4